Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Get Well Soon!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 4, 2001 21:28:42 UTC

Hi Paul,

No offense to Dick, but I might be able to follow your explanation a little easier. Maybe we are on the same wavelength or something after having so many discussions together (*smile*). You said:

>>>It is both. It is reductionist in that it reduces all of physics to mathematics. I am convinced that your result is a theorem of probability theory. I still intend to try to convince you of that.>It is non-reductionist in that it only models the 'physical layer' as your title "The Foundations of Physical Reality" implies. The word 'only' is appropriate because, as you have told me, your discovery says nothing whatsoever about the 'observer' or the "I" as in "what can I possibly know for sure".>It is this last thing (the 'observer' or the 'I' or whatever you want to call it) which I hold as fundamental in my picture of what-in-the-heck-is-going-on?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins